|
The NY Times leans Democratic generally. They endorsed Clinton and McCain for the primaries.
Clinton has experience, and is tested, they said.
On Edwards, it was fun, but:
We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.
Remember the NY Times has never seen a trade agreement they did not
like, though I doubt they read one. And they equate trade
agreements with trade, as if cross border trade occurred because of
governments rather than companies buying stuff.
Edwards and
Duncan Hunter injected the destructiveness of our
grab-bag-of-trade-agreements-that-are-not-enforced trade policy into
both the D and R debates.
Hunter's positions were the
strongest, most specific and most sensible. But he never broke out of
the third tier and the other Republican candidates seem resistant to
the ideas. How this plays when the economy is becoming the number
one issue, and 2/3rds of Republicans believe trade policy has been bad
for America, will remain to be seen. Hunter pulled the plug on
his campaign January 19, 2008.
Edwards trade positions caught on more strongly in the Dem
campaigns. Edwards has been a first tier candidate, forcing Obama
and Clinton to respond. Also, there is more distrust of trade
agreements among the D's in the House and Senate than among R's, so
criticism is not heresy.
The pro-sane trade endorsements should have been Edwards and Hunter.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed